Welcome

Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

Author
Topic: Why is there incorrect information about HIV and kissing on the CDC's website? (Read 20853 times)

The Center for Disease Control contradicts itself when taling about how HIV can be transmitted when it comes to kissing. First it says that the only documented cases of HIV transmission through kissing is when there was blood present in the mouth. Logically, this would mean that if there is no blood in someone's mouth, then they cannot transmit HIV if they have it.

However, the next sentence over, it says, "HIV positive individuals should avoid open mouthed kissing with a non infected partner".

It literally contradicts itself. But aside from that contradiction, there is that very basic fact. That there are absolutely NO documented cases of transmission through kissing when blood is not present.

So why does the site say that HIV positive people should avoid open mouthed kissing regardless? This is misleading to people who want to learn more about HIV and who turn to the CDC for education. I even wrote to the CDC about this, and they have not returned any messages.

There is an extremely remote chance that HIV could be transmitted during “French” or deep, open-mouth kissing with an HIV-infected person if the HIV-infected person’s mouth or gums are bleeding.

Yeah, I don't know if it's a great idea that they post every single way HIV might theoretically spread or where there was a single incidence. This is what drives all those people into the "I am infected" forum. It's not good to feed paranoia..I wonder how many of these cases have actually been scientifically proven.

My suggestion would be to not mention any incicences of HIV transmission that are either purely theoretical or for which the chance of tranmission is let's say less than 1 in a million. Such a small risk is negligible. It's the risk that's being part of life.Just imagine you would receive a warning for every activity you do that has a 1 in a million chance of you contracting a disease or get otherwise harmed...

"There are extremely rare cases of HIV being transmitted via deep “French” kissing but in each case, infected blood was exchanged due to bleeding gums or sores in the mouth. Because of this remote risk, it is recommended that individuals who are HIV-infected avoid deep, open-mouth “French” kissing with a non-infected partner, as there is a potential risk of transferring infected blood."

Does anyone has some numbers about how many people claim to be infected that way and if there are any scientifically validated cases of such transmission?

Not since the advent of HAART, and serodiscordant couples' studies.

Seems the CDC still weighs reported routes of transmission as heavily as documented routes, using data both unreliable and reliable, and mixes them up as though they were the same. It's also notorious for not updating obsolete and outdated information and links.

Honestly, it has really dropped the ball on HIV prevention.

You will not get HIV from kissing, cunnilingus, or basically anything sexually besides unprotected anal/vaginal sex.

Logged

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

I cant count the times Ive tried to give accurate information about how HIV is transmitted just to have someone tell me that I don't know what the hell I'm talking about because they read different information on the CDC website . The polite ones just give you that look that says OK if you say so but I know better . Its very frustrating and I never have figured out the best way to deal with this other than back out of the conversation .

If anyone ever figures out why the CDC does this where hiv is concerned, but no other illness, let me know. I've been trying to figure it out for nearly twelve years and I'm long since fed up with it. Folks over in the Am I forum are forever saying... "butbutbutbut... the CDC.... butbutbut...".

To be honest, I used to blame it on the ultra-sex-conservative Bush government and their abstinence-only mindset, but Obama hasn't turned his attention to the problem either. It may be that he doesn't know a problem exists. (Please keep in mind that the CDC is a government body.)

Many people I know in hiv prevention seem to turn an exasperated, blind eye to what the CDC publishes concerning hiv. It makes me think of the children's story The Emperor's New Clothes. Everyone smiles and waves at the CDC like nothing's wrong, all the while laughing/bitching behind their hands at the stupidity and ignorance.

Like I say to the folks over in Am I Infuriating Land, unless you're in the habit of repeatedly punching a person in the mouth before you kiss them (or they blow you), there could not possibly be enough blood present to cause concern.

Moral of the story? Don't punch your lover - or let yourself be punched - in the mouth before exchanging slobber or cum. Seempuls!

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

I just called my doctor too, and told him about this. He said that the CDC is just trying to cover their ass. He himself told me that he's treated many serodiscordant couples who kiss all the time, and the negative partner never gets it.

Im going to email the CDC again...because I understand they want to protect people, but they should be protecting people from actual danger, not some made up stuff from the 80's

It says, "There are extremely rare cases of HIV being transmitted via deep “French” kissing but in each case, infected blood was exchanged due to bleeding gums or sores in the mouth. Because of this remote risk, it is recommended that individuals who are HIV-infected avoid deep, open-mouth “French” kissing with a non-infected partner, as there is a potential risk of transferring infected blood."

This is a contradiction. First it says that the only cases where HIV has been transmitted by kissing, is when there was blood in the mouth. This is true, but then it goes on to say that HIV positive people should avoid open mouthed kissing period. Why does it say there is no danger if there is no blood in the mouth, but then it says that HIV positive people should not open mouth kiss, period? Shouldnt it read, that they should not engage in open mouth kissing if there is blood there?

My Infectious Disease doctor said that statement was not true upon reading it when I showed it to him, saying that he's treated HIV positive patients who have had HIV negative partners who open mouth kiss ALL THE TIME and there is no infection occuring. The CDC has a reputation for being a reliable source of information. It would be a great loss if there is information on the CDC's website is incorrect and more and more people believe it.

For this reason, I feel that it is important that the CDC not only prevent HIV and treat HIV, but also combat ignorance, as this is one of the biggest hurdles living as HIV positive. Yes, I understand HIV positive people must take steps to protect others, but they are not responsible for ignorance, and should not be indignified in any way because of medically outdated beliefs, perceptions, and stereotypes.

As I have great respect for the CDC and all of the work that it does to help the HIV positive community, I request the CDC does the right thing, and investigates this information, and update it with more up to date information.

This is quite hopeless. It's not just CDC, there are tons of misinformation going on about HIV. And then you wonder about all the paranoia running around not only on the Am I Infected but also here from other pozzies.

One of the first HIV doctors I went to said that everyone should be performing oral sex with a condom because "Yes, there is a potential risk of infection". And this was a guy who have been dealing with HIV patients ever since the 90's.

I told him "But no one does that". And he said "Yes they do". I just gave up arguing but you can imagine the amount of damage that this can do to a person who wants to have a paranoid-free sex life.

"Clint was diagnosed with HIV when he was 17. The infection progressed to AIDS within six months, which is unusually rapid. In this video, filmed in 2008, he talks about getting the diagnosis and living with AIDS. Clint died on April 4 2010, aged 31."

I mean...I understand why they would show this video and it's quite sad that a guy like Clint, who seems pretty healthy here, died but wouldn't it be better to show a video of someone who is still alive and well? I don't think this is very helpful to a newly-diagnosed poz. Unless this is part of some scare tactics.

I didn't watch the video Rockin but my first thought is not every one has a happy story to be told and they're story is worth hearing also . My friend Joe's story is one I tell from time to time , he tried harder than any man I know to live and didn't make it . I think people need to hear about people like Joe , it a sure reminder for us that do respond well to treatment not to take it for granted .

"Clint was diagnosed with HIV when he was 17. The infection progressed to AIDS within six months, which is unusually rapid. In this video, filmed in 2008, he talks about getting the diagnosis and living with AIDS. Clint died on April 4 2010, aged 31."

I mean...I understand why they would show this video and it's quite sad that a guy like Clint, who seems pretty healthy here, died but wouldn't it be better to show a video of someone who is still alive and well? I don't think this is very helpful to a newly-diagnosed poz. Unless this is part of some scare tactics.

I watched the video. I am confused and disappointed in the way I often am about media coverage of an HIV death. In fact, this video provides NO INFORMATION on the cause of Clint's death.

He is articulate, interesting. He certainly is attractive and in this video quite healthy looking.

What is left out is ESSENTIAL for us, I believe. We assume his death was from HIV related something.... since its on this site.

But in fact, no specifics are given whatsoever.

This is lazy media, typical, and rather enraging.

(So similar to the lack of essential details in most coverage of criminal transmission cases.)

« Last Edit: August 30, 2012, 02:15:25 PM by mecch »

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

I mean...I understand why they would show this video and it's quite sad that a guy like Clint, who seems pretty healthy here, died but wouldn't it be better to show a video of someone who is still alive and well? I don't think this is very helpful to a newly-diagnosed poz. Unless this is part of some scare tactics.

Yes, you have a right to know why he died. Otherwise, the message is quite fuzzy.

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

I didn't watch the video Rockin but my first thought is not every one has a happy story to be told and they're story is worth hearing also . My friend Joe's story is one I tell from time to time , he tried harder than any man I know to live and didn't make it . I think people need to hear about people like Joe , it a sure reminder for us that do respond well to treatment not to take it for granted .

Sure jg, I agree...I'm not saying we should be sugarcoating HIV and yes, people are still dying from it...but I do think scare tactics might eventually have the opposite effect, especially on young people.

I mean...how many topics have you read of newly-infected people who say they want to die, have no will to live, are afraid to start HAART because of "malicious side-effects" and even give up thinking about a retirement plan because they think they won't even get to be old? So a newly-infected individual goes to the NHS website to get information and they see this video and they think "That's it, I'm gonna die just like him". How in the world is that helpful?

And yes, I do think is important to know how someone with HIV dies these days, but apparently that shows "insensitivity" and "lack of respect for the deceased and their families".

And yes, I do think is important to know how someone with HIV dies these days, but apparently that shows "insensitivity" and "lack of respect for the deceased and their families".

In the case of that guy and his video on an HIV AIDS information site, I hardly think that information was withheld in order to respect the deceased or his family. The whole point of someone saying ok to have their story up there on THAT SITE is to give information.

I really do think this is poorly thought media and message on the part of the NHS.

Since it is presented in the context of HIV and longevity, the reason he died seems essential.

I have no problem with the full story of living and dying these days being told. Public deserves full information. Yes its complex. No not all the public can deal with complex information. Maybe some people can't deal with "normal life span" and "HAART is very good" being mixed into examples when in fact people do die of HIV-related causes and HAART is very bad, in some cases. Just tell the whole freaking story.

Here, one is left wondering..... And that just feeds fear, as you Rockin have hypothesized.

« Last Edit: August 30, 2012, 06:38:04 PM by mecch »

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

In the case of that guy and his video on an HIV AIDS information site, I hardly think that information was withheld in order to respect the deceased or his family. The whole point of someone saying ok to have their story up there on THAT SITE is to give information.

I really do think this is poorly thought media and message on the part of the NHS.

Since it is presented in the context of HIV and longevity, the reason he died seems essential.

I have no problem with the full story of living and dying these days being told. Public deserves full information. Yes its complex. No not all the public can deal with complex information. Maybe some people can't deal with "normal life span" and "HAART is very good" being mixed into examples when in fact people do die of HIV-related causes and HAART is very bad, in some cases. Just tell the whole freaking story.

Here, one is left wondering..... And that just feeds fear, as you Rockin have hypothesized.

From all the threads I've been reading on the Am I...area, I do think the scare tactics are working waaaaay too well, if you know what I mean. People are scared to death to get tested and to start HAART. Is this what we want?

* Lining of the anus or rectum* Lining of the vagina and/or cervix* Opening to the penis* Mouth that has sores or bleeding gums - there isn't documentation that saliva transfers the virus, but if blood is present (from flossing, bleeding gums, open mouth sore, etc.) then the virus may be transferred. * Cuts and sores* Needles (syringes)

CDC-INFO is a service of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).

This is pretty stupid BS if you ask me, because, once again, the only documented cases of people catching HIV from kissing was if BOTH the kissers had visible blood in their mouth. HIV positive people kiss negative people all the time. (Open mouth, and close mouth, all the way up to French Kissing) and yet, not ONE documented case where there was transmission (unless there was visible blood).

I just finally got a response from the CDC from the email that I sent them.

Here is their response:

This is pretty stupid BS if you ask me, because, once again, the only documented cases of people catching HIV from kissing was if BOTH the kissers had visible blood in their mouth. HIV positive people kiss negative people all the time. (Open mouth, and close mouth, all the way up to French Kissing) and yet, not ONE documented case where there was transmission (unless there was visible blood).

The truth is, if the one you kiss has bleeding gums (which is funny cause I personally don't remember ever kissing someone and then seeing or feeling blood in my mouth) then you can get all kinds of shit, not only HIV. I don't think we should stress on this, it's NEVER safe to have someone bleeding in your mouth, period...I would freak out.

The truth is, if the one you kiss has bleeding gums (which is funny cause I personally don't remember ever kissing someone and then seeing or feeling blood in my mouth) then you can get all kinds of shit, not only HIV. I don't think we should stress on this, it's NEVER safe to have someone bleeding in your mouth, period...I would freak out.

Im not arguing that. What Im arguing is that there is no risk of transmitting HIV if there is no blood, and that the CDC says HIV positive people should NEVER kiss anyong regardless of the circumstances (blood or no blood) and that is not true because if there is no blood in the mouth, then there is no risk, so there is no reason to instill fear and stigma into people for no reason.

In other words, the CDC should not be telling HIV positive people to never kiss someone. They should only be telling HIV positive people to not kiss someone if there's blood in the mouth.

About the Clint video-- I think it is irresponsible to say he died, especially so young, without saying the cause. Man, that could and I am sure has led to so many believing this is the norm. For all I know, he committed suicide. I hate when they don't provide information. When you feature someone and say they died, then I think it is fair to give the cause. Was it a bad case of pneumonia that he didn't recognize or put off medical treatment? We can only speculate.

Doctor Bob, at The Body, died almost exactly one year ago. The site gave so many mixed messages. They said it was sepsis. The site and contributors said it had nothing to do with HIV and this would have happened regardless. Then, his partner wrote that HIV takes a toll on the body and leaves many holes in the immune system. They gave so many mixed messages. I assume they wanted to avoid frightening newly diagnosed readers. But, it left so many wondering. It would have been better to just say they didn't know. They probably couldn't have known for sure. And, they acted like it was insensitive for people to ask, after many had conversed with him for years. Many had gotten to know him, as well as you can online. His main forum was an Am I Infected type forum. But, he also had a forum on health issues with the virus for people who've been poz for a while.

Im not arguing that. What Im arguing is that there is no risk of transmitting HIV if there is no blood, and that the CDC says HIV positive people should NEVER kiss anyong regardless of the circumstances (blood or no blood) and that is not true because if there is no blood in the mouth, then there is no risk, so there is no reason to instill fear and stigma into people for no reason.

In other words, the CDC should not be telling HIV positive people to never kiss someone. They should only be telling HIV positive people to not kiss someone if there's blood in the mouth.

I don't think that's the message. They inform possible ways of transmission, even the far-fetched ones. Do they use the word "never"?

About the Clint video-- I think it is irresponsible to say he died, especially so young, without saying the cause. Man, that could and I am sure has led to so many believing this is the norm. For all I know, he committed suicide. I hate when they don't provide information. When you feature someone and say they died, then I think it is fair to give the cause. Was it a bad case of pneumonia that he didn't recognize or put off medical treatment? We can only speculate.

Doctor Bob, at The Body, died almost exactly one year ago. The site gave so many mixed messages. They said it was sepsis. The site and contributors said it had nothing to do with HIV and this would have happened regardless. Then, his partner wrote that HIV takes a toll on the body and leaves many holes in the immune system. They gave so many mixed messages. I assume they wanted to avoid frightening newly diagnosed readers. But, it left so many wondering. It would have been better to just say they didn't know. They probably couldn't have known for sure. And, they acted like it was insensitive for people to ask, after many had conversed with him for years. Many had gotten to know him, as well as you can online. His main forum was an Am I Infected type forum. But, he also had a forum on health issues with the virus for people who've been poz for a while.

I do think is irresponsible as well. We should know the truth, so that we can understand and maybe learn some lessons.

However, in the case of NHS, I do think that's the message that they want to send...that HIV kills, so use a condom otherwise you'll die as well. And then you wonder why so many HIV+ get depressed and suicidal.

The truth is, if the one you kiss has bleeding gums (which is funny cause I personally don't remember ever kissing someone and then seeing or feeling blood in my mouth) then you can get all kinds of shit, not only HIV. I don't think we should stress on this, it's NEVER safe to have someone bleeding in your mouth, period...I would freak out.

Many people brush their teeth right before going on a date, which is a source of ( invisible to a naked eye) bleeding.It does not have to be massive bleeding, ya know...

Furthermore, many people have rhinitis, sinusitis, or post-nasal drip, and leukocytes from mucous can get into the oral cavity with ease (and if the person is HIV positive they contain HIV)

Many people brush their teeth right before going on a date, which is a source of ( invisible to a naked eye) bleeding.It does not have to be massive bleeding, ya know...

Furthermore, many people have rhinitis, sinusitis, or post-nasal drip, and leukocytes from mucous can get into the oral cavity with ease (and if the person is HIV positive they contain HIV)

Actually, yes, it would need to be massive bleeding. First, because saliva has several proteins that render HIV inactive. Then, brushing your teeth may cause bleeding, but that heals really fast. It would have stopped bleeding even before the person left the house.

I don't think that's the message. They inform possible ways of transmission, even the far-fetched ones. Do they use the word "never"?

Far-fetched is a far cry from "rare but reliably documented.". The CDC is using unquantified modes of transmission and ignores the wealth of serodiscordant studies. This IMHO moves from CYA to borderline unethical. It validates and encourages HIV phobia and stigma and is the intellectual bane of my existence as an HIV educator.

Logged

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

Many people brush their teeth right before going on a date, which is a source of ( invisible to a naked eye) bleeding.It does not have to be massive bleeding, ya know...

Furthermore, many people have rhinitis, sinusitis, or post-nasal drip, and leukocytes from mucous can get into the oral cavity with ease (and if the person is HIV positive they contain HIV)

None of this has ever been reliably documented to transmit HIV. This speculation is just that. And please do not take offense, but it theorizes with absolutely no quantification.

There are over a dozen identified elements in human saliva which, combined with its pH balance, presents a thorough and effective barrier. Kissing is safer sex. Period.

Now chronic meth use tends to inhibit the production of saliva. This is also the main contributor to meth mouth. In that scenario it would not be unreasonable to imagine the person with meth mouth risking HIV infection by swallowing saliva. But even there, kissing is a rest stretch. And as I have mentioned it has never been reliably quantified.

Logged

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

In most parts of the USA, HIV positive people get jailed when they spit on other people/policemen.

just because someone passed a stupid law doesn't make scientific fact remember there was a law against allowing HIV poz people into the country, and there is still a law against gays donating blood. Both laws were put into place by stigma not science

besides spitting on a law officer has been illegal in many areas for decades for many other reasons than HIV - disrespect, interfering with a law officer, assaulting an officer, exposing an officer to other diseases besides HIV

Far-fetched is a far cry from "rare but reliably documented.". The CDC is using unquantified modes of transmission and ignores the wealth of serodiscordant studies. This IMHO moves from CYA to borderline unethical. It validates and encourages HIV phobia and stigma and is the intellectual bane of my existence as an HIV educator.

Right after I received my diagnosis, I read this story on the internet about a guy who said he was infected from his partner who was undergoing some dental treatment and was bleeding because of it. So they would french kiss and that's how he got it.

I don't even know if that story is true...I'm just saying that I read it and that story stuck in my head. I think if you google HIV/AIDS and kissing or kiss you will find it.

I am aware that a lot of people lie about their infection and I do think that if activities such as kissing and oral sex were considered high risk then a lot more people would have HIV. It's probably easier to get hit by a car or by lightning.

And why does that bother you? It is the truth. If because of this some people want to believe in the HIV monster thing then that's their problem. People lie for of all kinds of things...do you want to sell the idea that HIV+ are, I don't know, better human beings than others? Are HIV+ above this?

I do think that if activities such as kissing and oral sex were considered high risk then a lot more people would have HIV. It's probably easier to get hit by a car or by lightning.

Thing is, we can ABSOLUTE PROOF of people getting hit by lightning and cars. We have ZERO incontestable evidence of transmission through kissing, and though Page-Shafer tried for a total of eight years, she could not quantify a single instance of HIV through any act of oral sex. It's impossible to compare the two, since one is quantifiable and one is not.

There is more grounded theoretical evidence of extraterrestrial life than there is of HIV being spread through these unorthodox means.

Logged

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

Thing is, we can ABSOLUTE PROOF of people getting hit by lightning and cars. We have ZERO incontestable evidence of transmission through kissing, and though Page-Shafer tried for a total of eight years, she could not quantify a single instance of HIV through any act of oral sex. It's impossible to compare the two, since one is quantifiable and one is not.

There is more grounded theoretical evidence of extraterrestrial life than there is of HIV being spread through these unorthodox means.

I do believe that, completely. But unless some researchers decide to make an official statement about this, people will continue to believe that it is possible. And I do think most doctors out there believe it is possible.

If because of this some people want to believe in the HIV monster thing then that's their problem. People lie for of all kinds of things...do you want to sell the idea that HIV+ are, I don't know, better human beings than others? Are HIV+ above this?

No of course not. I'm glad you don't believe in the aids spreader stereotype. Sure there are isolated cases.

Just checking!

THere are two "voices" sometimes that someone can speak with in a community. One is the "public" voice that says what is pc for the group.

The other voice says something more nuanced; true, but which can be used against it.

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

But the truth is, if someone is bias against HIV+, they will use anything to support their views. It doesn't really matter what we write here.

I agree with the first part of your statement, but obviously not the second part. Telling the facts, providing the data may well be lost on ninety percent of the world, but that other ten percent matters.

Logged

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

I agree with the first part of your statement, but obviously not the second part. Telling the facts, providing the data may well be lost on ninety percent of the world, but that other ten percent matters.

I wrote that in reference to the "some HIV+ lie about their status" part. Of course we have to provide accurate data and information, that goes without saying.

I do believe that, completely. But unless some researchers decide to make an official statement about this, people will continue to believe that it is possible. And I do think most doctors out there believe it is possible.